SAJC H2 History Paper 2 2024 Lecture 5 Political Structures Pt 2

Paper 2: Developments in Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) Theme I: Forming Nation-States – Establishing Political Structures and Legitimacy 1 SAJC/History Department/SEA/JC1/Theme 1: Forming Nation-States /Lt5/2023/INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY Lecture 5: Phases 2 & 3 – Authoritarian Governments & Return to Democracy SAJC History Unit, 2023 1. Possible question types for this lecture 2. Case Study 1: Burma 3. Case Study 2: Indonesia 4. Case Study 3: Philippines 5. Case Study 4: The Federation of Malaya / Malaysia 6. Case Study 5: Singapore 7. Case Study 6: Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam 1954 -1976), Socialist Republic of Vietnam (post-1976) 8. Case Study 7: Thailand

Paper 2: Developments in Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) Theme I: Forming Nation-States – Establishing Political Structures and Legitimacy 2 SAJC/History Department/SEA/JC1/Theme 1: Forming Nation-States /Lt5/2023/INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY This set of lecture notes focuses on the effectiveness of authoritarian governments (Phase II) and the return to democratic governments in (Phase III). Having established some form of authoritarianism, different SEA countries thus experienced varying degrees of effectiveness in consolidating power. We will be using the set of 4 criterion (on p. 3) to assess effectiveness of governments more closely for this lecture. Hence for every case study, you need to ask yourself the following questions: 1. Were authoritarian governments able to harness traditional institutions (religion and monarchy)? 2. Were authoritarian governments able to manage political challenges and popular opposition? 3. What about constitutional process and elections? Did these processes bring about greater legitimacy and support for authoritarian governments? 4. Were authoritarian governments able to implement effective socio - economic development? Lastly, phase III refers to a return to more democratic practices by SEA countries. Questions you should be asking yourself should be: • Why this trend back to democratic practices? • Were these truly democratic practices? • What was the impact on the consolidation of power? Positive or negative?

Paper 2: Developments in Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) Theme I: Forming Nation-States – Establishing Political Structures and Legitimacy 3 SAJC/History Department/SEA/JC1/Theme 1: Forming Nation-States /Lt5/2023/INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY 1. Possible question types for the lecture (recap of Lecture 4) 1.1 Assessing effectiveness of authoritarian govts in consolidating power • Criterion to assess effectiveness in consolidating power a) Ability to harness traditional institutions b) Ability to maintain order and stability c) Ability to promote constitutional forms and practices d) Ability to promote socio-economic development 1.2 Evaluate significance of each factor in determining whether SEA governments could consolidate power • Factors influencing the consolidation of power: a) Role of Government Leaders b) Role of Constitutional Processes and Elections c) Role of the Military d) Role of Traditional Institutions e) Government Performance f) Role of Political Challenges and Opposition o as litmus tests of whether governments were able to consolidate power and legitimacy o Political challenges: communist threats, minority uprisings, military coups o Popular opposition : middle -class and student movements, pro - democracy movements g) Role of Cold War Developments

Paper 2: Developments in Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) Theme I: Forming Nation-States – Establishing Political Structures and Legitimacy 4 SAJC/History Department/SEA/JC1/Theme 1: Forming Nation-States /Lt5/2023/INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY 2. Case Study 1: Burma 2.1 Overview of Case Study Burma remains a very important case study for the following question types: i) Effectiveness of authoritarian governments in consolidating power Ability to harness traditional institutions Burma’s example is useful to show how the government failed to harness traditional institutions like religion to consolidate power. Rather than strengthening the role of Buddhism, Ne Win sought to suppress Buddhism instead, sparking religious opposition. Ability to maintain order and stability We already have evidence of how the Burmese military managed to contain both communist and ethnic minority uprisings in Lecture 4. For this lecture, we learn about the military government’s response to popular protests, namely the 8888 Uprising. It is important to know how the military government used repression to clamp down on these protests and yet they also gave some political concessions, albeit only in form but not in practice. Ability to promote constitutional forms and practices Burma is useful to show how democratic forms and practices were subverted and used to legitimise authoritarian government. Hence you need to know how the democratic forms and practices were farcical and certainly did not mean an opening up and sharing of political space with other parties. Litmus test to evaluate effectiveness of using democratic forms and practices to gain legitimacy would be in the form of popular protests. Ability to promote socio-economic development Another negative case study in the form of Burmese Way to Socialism. ii) Return to Phase III – democratic practices This is a negative case study, where the military government resorted to further repression to consolidate its monopoly of power. iii) Factors contributing to the consolidation of power in authoritarian governments: Again a negative case study. The Cold War context is not relevant for Burma as it pursued isolationist policies since 1962.

Paper 2: Developments in Southeast Asia (Independence – 2000) Theme I: Forming Nation-States – Establishing Political Structures and Legitimacy 5 SAJC/History Department/SEA/JC1/Theme 1: Forming Nation-States /Lt5/2023/INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY 2.2 A chronological overview of the political transitions over time: • 1947: Democratic constitution announced and democracy • January 1948: Burma attained independence, with U Nu as Prime Minister • 1951: First elections held • 1958: AFPFL split occurred and military caretaker government invited by U Nu to reestablish order • 1962-1988: Ne Win’s coup and the military took over; authoritarian government rule imposed • 1988: The ‘8888’ Uprising • 1988-1997: State Law Order and Restoration Council (SLORC) / State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) 2.3 Ne Win’s influence as leader (1962-1988) • Ne Win’s influence in Burmese politics was central to its consolidation of power from 1962-1988. As a leader, Ne Win carefully cultivated an image of a successor to Aung San as source of legitimacy. o Ne Win was a member of the Thakin movement dating back to student activism at the University of Rangoon in the 1930s. He was also a member of the “Thirty Comrades”, organised during Aung San and trained in Japan during WWII. o He had been the army commander-in-chief since 1948, had a brief stint as a member of U Nu’s cabinet in 1950 and then was PM from 1958 to 1960 (period of caretaker government). o His experience and military background led to the loyalty of hundreds of men in the military until the end of his term in 1988. • Ne Win might have enforced military rule in Burma but it is possible to see his political style as one that adopted a gradual and cautious approach to organisation. o Although he imprisoned opposition leaders, as he did in 1962 after his coup and failed negotiations, they were released after two years. - In 1980, the state offered amnesty to all political prisoners, including insurgents who surrendered within 90 days. This amnesty enabled large numbers of people who joined U Nu in his 1970 attempt to overthrow Ne Win